Peppersass wrote:The key is that the target for dialing in both grinders was an extraction with certain characteristics, which in turn is produced by a particular particle size distribution. The loaded hopper grinder will produce that particle size distribution at a coarser setting than the single dose grinder. But the both grinders are producing about the same particle size distribution, or it's close enough that you can't tell the difference in the cup.

Dick, I understand that the grind setting was changed to produce similar extraction characteristics for single shot grinding vs. loaded hopper grinding. That's not the issue here.

Your assumption that the particle size distribution is the same is unwarranted speculation. My unwarranted speculation is exactly the opposite: changing the distance between the grinding burrs will almost certainly change the particle size distribution. The fact that the bean load is changing by a factor of infinity in single shot dosing (from ~16g to 0g), but only by a small factor with a bean load, makes this a near certainty. Only particle sizing (e.g., laser diffractometry) will tell us for sure.

As much as I'd enjoy seeing particle sizing results, tasting studies like these are of far greater practical importance. It doesn't matter if the particle size distribution changes, as long as the results in the cup are not inferior. Heck, the single dosing distribution might even produce better taste (although the OP clearly does not think so). So if Jon and Nicholas can demonstrate that single dosing produces no negative changes in the cup, I will happily accept their results. (At least, until another study comes along to call their conclusions into question. )

JonR10 wrote:Mr. Benis seems to believe it's a "night and day" difference.

Jon, while getting offended at other's posts, please resist the temptation to become offensive yourself.

A sudden "Mr Benis" and "night and day difference" which drags us into the realms of overstatement for dramatic effect are not appreciated. I understand that you were irritated when you wrote your post and the questions were elementary, but I'm sure they were not intended to be derogatory.

On the other hand I can assure you that despite having a feverish imagination I am quite clear about the differences I have experienced.

Moreover, I have a very clear impression of the taste profile of my Super Jolly with a variety of my regular beans. I have always used the SJ in single-dose mode because it was so convenient and of course a great way of ensuring I got as few stale grinds as possible in every shot. The extractions looked fine etc. and of course waste is greatly reduced (no purges required).

There are consistent, significant differences now that I am only using it with beans in the hopper. One of the most noticeable beans was the Yirgacheffe I had for breakfast. The SJ lags far behind the Nino for this bean, failing to capture much of its floral subtlety and bright zing. In single-dose mode the brightness would always come through as more of a flat sour taste (NOT an underextracted shot overall) and all the floral notes were lost. The result was so flat I used to grind it in my hand grinder, which though very bright (and of course also working in "single-dose mode ) would keep the champagne in the brightness and preserve more of the floral notes. The SJ performs much better with a decent "column" of beans, some of the floral notes come through, there is a little more layering, the deeper notes overwhelm the taste profile less and the brightness has a little fizz rather than acid to it. To me these are significant improvements. The same goes for the sweetness in the Guatemalan, which disappeared in single-dose mode etc.

You can say these are fussy beans, and they are; they have nice subtle effects that are easily lost. Single-dosing on the SJ loses them. It might not have the same effect on chocolate mousse blends. I don't know. I don't drink them.

There were less differences in mouthfeel on the SJ than the Nino. Conversely, there were no Nino single-dose shots that "missed it" in terms of not capturing what was going on in the beans I was using. But the overall definition, layering and yet coherence was much more satisfying and pronounced. These were not "night and day" differences, but they were certainly of the order of magnitude one finds between one top-flight grinder and another. I have no doubt about this. Or that I preferred the hoppered Nino to the single-dose.

You may say this is Princess and Pea territory, which is of course what many would say about "gourmet" of any kind. But this princess has no doubts.

It is clear that we all need to be cautious of the human factor in our findings. It has been suggested that I found what I wanted to (when in fact the situation was the reverse). I waited a week before posting because I wanted to be sure before of what I was reporting, partly because I was worried that people might take these findings personally.

Jon, despite your very great experience, I think you may have allowed yourself to be influenced by your feelings on this occasion. And I write that hoping I can simply state what I observe. I do not write it out of any disrespect. Quite the reverse.

Nevertheless you immediately reported findings you yourself qualified because the bean was unsuitable (both in terms of rest post-rosting and general taste profile) and largely unpleasant. It was hardly appropriate in other words for a comparison of the subtle distinctions in taste one would make between different high-end grinders (and for this I point you to Jim's comments on differences in the TGP/"Can it beat the Robur?" threads in terms of what's noticeable and what's "night and day" - and quite logically, here we're talking about whether a Robur can beat a Robur).

I certainly respect that the tasting was double blind, but do not find anything revealing in the finding that an unpleasant bean tasted equally unpleasant from both grinders. Tests using very forgiving beans would also be less revealing. I am sure you would agree that bean choice is no less important an aspect of test design as whether or not it is double blind.

I will certainly be interested to hear your findings with more suitable beans.

I have no beef with anyone single dosing and don't have the vaguest idea what differences people may find with their own equipment (whether lever, GS3 or Mypressi ) and their own favourite beans. Nor do I think I have a particularly refined palate (and indeed couldn't: I have no sense of smell). But I have absolutely no doubt that single-dosing consistently produces an inferior cup from both my grinders.

I'm not overly concerned about the theory, and tried to overlook anything related to it while doing the initial week of testing. But I have thought about it more since, connecting initial observations with the differences in taste I observed. Single-dose use requires a much finer grind setting and yet looking at what you get in the basket there is a noticeably higher number of large particles compared to using a hopper filled with say 100g of beans. I suspect we have more particles at the extremes when single-dosing, and that although their combined effect is OK to achieve an acceptable pour, the differences between how they extract is what affects the taste and mouthfeel, with there being a greater proportion of underextracted and overextracted particles, with less in between.

Cheers

Mike

michaelbenis wrote:A sudden "Mr Benis" and "night and day difference" which drags us into the realms of overstatement for dramatic effect are not appreciated. I understand that you were irritated when you wrote your post and the questions were elementary, but I'm sure they were not intended to be derogatory.

It was not my intention to be offensive in any way. Apologies again.

I used the "night and day" phrase to make my point....if the difference was as pronounced as you sometimes make it seem then it should be a fairly straightforward matter to reproduce it. If the differences are subtle and only can be noticed using certain "finicky" beans then that is different.

michaelbenis wrote:Jon, despite your very great experience, I think you may have allowed yourself to be influenced by your feelings on this occasion.

Michael, I was not one of the "scoring" taste judges and the test was administered double blind, so my feelings were not part of the test. I look forward to trying this again with a nice espresso that we like, that may better demonstrate the effect you describe

All I can say is that while I was dialing in the shots it seemed to me that there was no discernable difference, and that is the opinion I posted. I do not feel like this test proved anything except that any differences perceived are too subtle to distinguish under these circumstances.

michaelbenis wrote: You may say this is Princess and Pea territory, which is of course what many would say about "gourmet" of any kind. But this princess has no doubts.

I'd like to see a blind test that shows it, and you might be surprised if you participated in such a test.

Jon,

Apology certainly accepted.

it is a straightforward matter but very possibly not with unrested beans, the behaviour which by all accounts was an unknown to all parties and from which you by your own acknowledgement could not get a decent shot.

You yourself, on the one hand acknowledged there was nothing to report, yet on the other..... you reported that there was no difference. And that's where you allowed your feelings to get in the way.
I look forward to reading the results of blind tests using beans that are known quantities and have a sufficiently delineated profile to be revealing. I would also be delighted to take part in one.

It would be helpful if any tests also noted the doses and shot volume etc. Mine were 7-8g singles of just under 2 oz and 13.5g doubles of about 3.5 to 4 oz - all drunk black without stirring and without skimming crema, without sugar etc.

At the same time, we're talking clear differences for me. I don't need a blind test to tell me that I prefer Londinium's Cuban beans roasted 3 degrees lighter than they do it stock. Nor to tell their Sidamo apart from their Yirgacheffe. Or to know when I have got a grind dialled in. Or to identify (blind - out of curiosity as noted) the single-dosed shots with the Super Jolly from the single-dosed shots with the Nino. I got that right every time, with the baskets apart from anything else being indistinguishable visually.

Similarly, I don't need a blind test to be sure of the fact that I am getting a better result from the Super Jolly than I ever did when I used it in single-dosing mode.

It's also worth mentioning that the shots when single-dosing on both machines showed greater inter-shot variability. Something I am afraid I forgot to note.

In short, although I wouldn't for a second claim that these are differences which put the contrast beween a blade grinder and Robur in the shade I feel they are big enough for me to have confidently posted what I did. I feel they are as big as the differences between comparable but clearly inferior/superior grinders in the same class.

The Nino definitely needs a weight of beans though. I find it's working best with at least 100g in the hopper.

I'll probably be getting a second Nino in the new year, which will allow me to do blind tests with identical grinders down here with whoever is interested on HB locally. Maybe Tom, if he fancies it. And maybe Reiss from Londinium espresso. If anyone else in S. England fancies joining in, give me a shout here or by pm.

In the meantime, I eagerly await the next instalment of your own tests.

Cheers

Mike

RapidCoffee wrote:As much as I'd enjoy seeing particle sizing results, tasting studies like these are of far greater practical importance. It doesn't matter if the particle size distribution changes, as long as the results in the cup are not inferior.

Dude - you rock.

Your posting style is generally non-confrontational but your logic is always impeccable. I appreciate your humor as well. Too bad you choose to live at the North Pole (hey! are you Santa in disguise?).

Wish you could be here for the next round....got plans for New year's?



While your point is valid, I would be interested to see the change in particle size distribution for both cases (dialed in for similar flow) and see if that correlates in any way to either hypothesis.

I would be interested to see the change in particle size distribution for both cases (dialed in for similar flow) and see if that correlates in any way to help support or refute either hypothesis.

+1 !

another_jim wrote:The reaction to Jon's and Nicholas's test shows why people who market expensive stuff bend over backwards trying to persuade people that blind testing doesn't work.

...and kinda makes me regret posting about this experiment at all.

...and kinda makes me regret posting about this experiment at all.

If it's any consolation I know the feeling

On the other hand, we may just be getting somewhere

michaelbenis wrote:You yourself, on the one hand acknowledged there was nothing to report, yet on the other..... you reported that there was no difference. And that's where you allowed your feelings to get in the way.

No. I said the test was inconclusive. That in itself is worth reporting.
My impressions, though unscientific, are also just as report-worthy as yours.

Jon,

I'm sorry to bang on about this and I'm going to shut up after this, but you posted:

The coffee we used was too young and too bright for us to get really good shots and the very best of the day were barely passable so I'm not going to post data

If those are the shots you got, it's hardly surprising there weren't noticeable differences between basically the same grinder used in different ways.

The fact that you commented - and indeed that Jim found this a worthy blind test result to use an example - indicates some bias to me, resulting from your own practice. And I write that dispassionately.

I'm really sad that either of us should feel a little raw at this stage.

So, let's get on with having a great Sunday and rope some poor guinea pigs into some blind testing and see what comes of it....

All the best and a warm virtual handshake

Mike